Why I favor publicly financed election campaigns

This campaign season, I've noticed that my name keeps appearing in The Oregonian's editorials, in conversations surrounding Measure 26-108 and even in the Voters Pamphlet.

So rather than ignore this important issue, I'll share my reflections as a person who had the privilege of running for mayor of Portland in 2004 and who has the distinction -- if you can call it that -- of raising the most campaign funds for a mayoral race in Portland's history, and still losing.

As a member of the Portland City Council when so-called "voter-owned elections" was first instituted, as a candidate for mayor and as a close observer of important elections over the past six years, I believe I understand both sides of the debate. Each has two compelling arguments.

Those opposed to Measure 26-108 have rightly pointed out that even before the devastating recession, the city's critical mission-driven priorities need funding. Some opponents cite one such priority that's close to my heart, the SUN School program, which I helped create. Some $400,000 a year, the average cost of Portland campaign finance reform, would fund hundreds of children in after-school programs in poor neighborhoods such as Lents, Cully and St. John's.

The opponents also rightly point out that no one has ever come up with any examples in which campaign contributors received an unfair advantage before the Portland City Council. That was certainly true of my time as a commissioner and subsequently. I'm proud of the fact that hundreds of Portlanders contributed to my campaigns because they believed in the vision I had for the city. At no time did my contributors cross the line in demanding special treatment on any issue before the City Council.

But the proponents of public financing in Portland also present two compelling arguments. First, our democracy is better served by having a variety of candidates run from diverse backgrounds, even if these candidates lack access to the connections that typically help fund political campaigns. I would add that there has been an historic and appalling lack of diversity on Portland's City Council that should be addressed.

The second compelling argument to continue public financing is that since its passage, there's been a significant reduction in the amount of money being contributed to political campaigns in Portland. That's a good thing. Although I believe I was prepared to be Portland's mayor, I also believe that I would have been even better prepared had I spent less time raising money and more time listening to voters.

So how am I going to vote? What tipped the balance for me are additional realities: the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United, in which corporations acting as individuals under the law can now make unlimited political contributions. In the wake of that recent decision, there has been a flood of corporate and special-interest money that's overwhelming our political process. Just last week, I received a call from a long-standing Oregon senator, who told me that suddenly $100,000 of special-interest money was flowing into his district at the last minute trying to change the outcome. This threatens our democracy.

The other reality is not about campaigning for public office. It's about governing. In order to effectively govern, a candidate for public office should build broad coalitions and partnerships between government, business, labor and the community. Campaigns should not be dominated by one group or another, or else elected officials, no matter how much integrity they have, will not have the trust and confidence they need to govern effectively.

So I'm going to vote for maintaining public financing as an option for those who want to use it and who meet the requirements. I don't believe Portland's system is perfect. But I know our country desperately needs local examples that have worked to limit campaign contributions.

Our democracy demands it.

Jim Francesconi of Northeast Portland is a former Portland city commissioner.